I wounder if "three" objects can exist in the absence of an intelligence to count them.

I had that argument with a creonut once, where he/she was insisting that numbers themselves were from the mind of god, and require intelligence to perceive/exist. Therefore an omniscient god exists, or numbers wouldn't.

KF, your comment at 257 makes it quite clear that you are still struggling with the basic concepts and methodologies behind scientific models of physical reality. Not to worry, these can be difficult concepts however I don’t see much point in my trying to explain again so I’ll give up now, particularly in light of your move towards rhetorical dismissal and insult in 256, your proclaimed victory in 259 and the tiresome appeals to onlookers.By the way, you said this:

Quote

Physics does not program ponds to make life molecules, at least if the thermodynamics numbers are to be believed.

Making blind assertions will not win arguments, unfortunately I haven’t yet managed to track down the reference but there is research indicating how early life and protein evolution is consistent with thermodynamics. From what I gather some of those materialistic scientists you grumble about are actually doing the research rather than just making claims.

Physics IS the program you moron. Struggling with the basic concepts is putting it politely!

Any idea what he might be referring to re thermodynamics - I'm sure I read some newsy thing about this recently as well. If I remember correctly it was about how the earliest proteins are also the most thermodynamically easy to generate - the most likely to form by 'random' processes and consistent with an evolving organism.

There is this pre-print: "A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code"Paul G. Higgs and Ralph E. PudritzPDF

Yeah, he would say that "true" generation of random numbers requires intelligence. Or that numbers themselves require intelligence, or that detection of random numbers requires intelligence.

All while missing the point that randomness is built in to the entire universe, so far as we know, and that "numbers" are just designations in an axiomatic system...and that "detectors" and "random decay" would exist whether or not intelligent observers observed them, so far as we know.

Eh, it's hardly worth bothering, is it.

ETA: After reading this thread: https://www.blogger.com/comment....0873634 with Joe "CakeBoy" Gallien struggling mightily to show how baseballs, aardvarks, ice and broken branches contain mathematically-determinable "CSI," -- well, hell, it's not worth the bother to try to deal with him in any way.

I did appreciate the humor from Blipey and RichardTaHugs and Hawks poking at him, though.

Damn, that's some serious tard in that cakeboy mix. .

ahhh that's good tard

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

I wounder if "three" objects can exist in the absence of an intelligence to count them.

I had that argument with a creonut once, where he/she was insisting that numbers themselves were from the mind of god, and require intelligence to perceive/exist. Therefore an omniscient god exists, or numbers wouldn't.

the history of this argument is thousands of years old. it's still stupidly unnecessary. anyone who is going to yammer about ideas in the minds of god is someone i want to GTF away from quickly. keep them at keyboards length lololol

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

KF, your comment at 257 makes it quite clear that you are still struggling with the basic concepts and methodologies behind scientific models of physical reality. Not to worry, these can be difficult concepts however I don’t see much point in my trying to explain again so I’ll give up now, particularly in light of your move towards rhetorical dismissal and insult in 256, your proclaimed victory in 259 and the tiresome appeals to onlookers.By the way, you said this:

Quote

Physics does not program ponds to make life molecules, at least if the thermodynamics numbers are to be believed.

Making blind assertions will not win arguments, unfortunately I haven’t yet managed to track down the reference but there is research indicating how early life and protein evolution is consistent with thermodynamics. From what I gather some of those materialistic scientists you grumble about are actually doing the research rather than just making claims.

Physics IS the program you moron. Struggling with the basic concepts is putting it politely!

Any idea what he might be referring to re thermodynamics - I'm sure I read some newsy thing about this recently as well. If I remember correctly it was about how the earliest proteins are also the most thermodynamically easy to generate - the most likely to form by 'random' processes and consistent with an evolving organism.

There is this pre-print: "A thermodynamic basis for prebiotic amino acid synthesis and the nature of the first genetic code"Paul G. Higgs and Ralph E. PudritzPDF

But wait males also have an X, therefor that X should also show signs of deterioration.

The X-chromosome in a male comes from his mother. X-chromosomes recombine in mothers. (It's believed that sex chromosomes evolved to progressively restrict recombination between male and female chromosomes, a result of clustering of male advantageous traits.)

Quote

Joseph: Therefor if a man has a son, who then has a son, who then also has a son, we should be able to see some X chromosome deterioration somewhere along that patrilineage in at least some of the gametes.

The father does not pass his X-chromosome down to his son. A son acquires his X-chromosome from his mother—who just happens to have two recombining X-chromosomes.

--------------Proudly banned threefour five times by Uncommon Descent.There is only one Tard. The Tard is One.

But wait males also have an X, therefor that X should also show signs of deterioration.

The X-chromosome in a male comes from his mother. X-chromosomes recombine in mothers. (It's believed that sex chromosomes evolved to progressively restrict recombination between male and female chromosomes, a result of clustering of male advantageous traits.)

Quote

Joseph: Therefor if a man has a son, who then has a son, who then also has a son, we should be able to see some X chromosome deterioration somewhere along that patrilineage in at least some of the gametes.

The father does not pass his X-chromosome down to his son. A son acquires his X-chromosome from his mother—who just happens to have two recombining X-chromosomes.

Exactly. The dumbass has now been straightened out.

KC

--------------Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

Males contribute X chromosomes to their daughters, which can then undergo recombination and be passed on to their sons and daughters, and so on. In other words, every male receives his X chromosome from his mother, where it underwent recombination with its homologous X. Surely this doesn’t have to be explained to you further.

don't call him shirley. and you know it will have to be explained to him further. looking forward to seeing his response

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

kairosfocus: Similarly, in a GA, its code is not allowed to vary at random as part of the normal execution. Nor that of the underlying operating system

After all this time, they still haven't learned the fundamentals of modeling. They still think you have to randomly mutate the operating system to simulate evolution. Or spin the computer on a rope to simulate planets in orbit. Or heat a computer in a vat to simulate the turbulence of boiling water.

Gil Dodgen, what have you wrought!

I always wonder if Gil drops his computer out of a plane when he is testing his

Quote

guidance, navigation and control (GN&C) software

by simulating

Quote

precision-guided airdrop systems

. And what does his boss think about this.

--------------"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

Males contribute X chromosomes to their daughters, which can then undergo recombination and be passed on to their sons and daughters, and so on. In other words, every male receives his X chromosome from his mother, where it underwent recombination with its homologous X. Surely this doesn’t have to be explained to you further.

don't call him shirley. and you know it will have to be explained to him further. looking forward to seeing his response

I didn't think it was possible, but joe is far stupider than I thought:

Did you have a point?How did what you posted address:BTW each male carries a population of gametes.In that population we should see the X chromosome deteriorate over time.That is if your premise is correct.My point is that a dad can give a deteriorated X to his daughter.And you still haven’t addressed:So if recombination is limited deterioration is inevitable?IOW how does recombination prevent deterioration?

--------------Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius

because Clive, Baby might just see this "Dave Wisker" guy as 'uncivil' lololol

Quote

9

Dave Wisker

07/24/2009

11:32 am

joseph,

My point is that a dad can give a deteriorated X to his daughter

And my point is that X can then undergo recombination with its homologue, which can ameliorate the overall degenerative effect. The Y cannot do that at all.

And you still haven’t addressed:

So if recombination is limited deterioration is inevitable?

IOW how does recombination prevent deterioration?

If you cannot see how a chromosome that never recombines with its homologous chromosome can avoid eventual deterioration, then you need to brush up on your basic population genetics. The situation is similar to what happens with asexual populations. The genomes of asexual populations inevitably accumulate deleterious and degenerative mutations under a process known as Muller’s Ratchet. Without recombination, the Y will accumulate degenerative mutations in the same way, with no means of bringing in “healthier’ DNA from a homologous chromosome.

10

Dave Wisker

07/24/2009

11:46 am

joseph,

A good explanation of Muller’s Ratchet and recombination can be fo8und in Joe Felsenstein’s paper on the advantages of recombination:

Check out this interesting find. Every once in awhile I'll check out Dembski's syllabi that he puts online at his Design Inference website. he is teaching a new undergraduate course and ID an UNintelligent Evolution.

First off, does he think that just because evolution doesn't have the word intelligent in it makes it dumb and that becasue ID does that makes it smart. I think he is dumb.

Individuals with documented impairments who may need special circumstances for exams, classroom participation, or assignments should contact the instructor at the beginning of the semester in order for special arrangements to be considered.

Damn, that must be his whole class!!!! They are already going to Southwest Tardilogical Seminary.

TAKE-HOME FINAL EXAMPlease answer each of the following questions in 500 words or less. Answer every part of each question. Be concise. This exam is open-book, but you can only consult general reference books (e.g., the Bible), the five books read in class, and the notes you took in class. You may not cruise the Internet in search of answers or in any way seek the help of others. Your completed exam needs to be emailed to the grader, Jack Greenoe, by Thursday 12:00 noon. In turning this paper in you agree, on pain of divine judgment, that this is entirely your own work.

Answer the following questions [20 points each, no more than 500 words per question]:

1. Defend the Vincentian Canon to a 21st century skeptic of Christianity.

2. You just learned that your nephew or niece is going off to study theology at a liberal seminary. You suspect the place is teeming with “Homer Wilsons,” i.e., professors intent on eroding any real faith of the seminary students. Write a letter to your nephew or niece outlining the pitfalls that they are likely to face and how they should protect their faith from eroding.

3. According to Richard Dawkins, faith is believing in the absence of evident. By contrast, Nancy Pearcey argues that the attempt to remove Christian faith from the realm of knowledge and evidence has led to Christianity’s cultural captivity. Make the case that Christian faith is a matter not of subjective opinion but of objective knowledge.

4. No amputees are recorded as having been healed in the New Testament (i.e., no one with a missing limb is said to have grown back the limb in response to a prayer by Jesus or one of the Apostles). Indeed, throughout Church history it appears that no such miracle has occurred (if you know of a well-confirmed case, please cite it). Atheists therefore argue that if miracles really happened and gave evidence of God, God would have performed a healing like growing back the limb of an amputee. Do atheists have a point here? How do you maintain that miracles are real in the face of such criticism?

5. Philosopher and theologian Nancey Murphy, who is on the faculty of Fuller Theological Seminary, argues that humans do not have a soul, that soul is a Greek invention, and that the original Hebrew understanding of the human person was as a purely physical being. Thus, for her, our immortality consists not in having immortal souls but in the prospect of God resurrecting us to a new physical existence. Contra Murphy, argue that we do have a soul and that it is more than our physical bodies.

Kind of calls to mind the old saying that those who can, do; those who can't, teach.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

3. It’s some time in the future. New leadership at the Templeton Foundation has decided it’s time to use the $50,000,000 that the foundation spends yearly on promoting the relation between science and religion to overthrow scientific materialism and the evolutionary worldview it has fostered. You are the Templeton Foundation’s new program director and are charged with overseeing its programs and directing its funds. Sketch out a 20-year plan for defeating scientific materialism if you had $50,000,000 per year in current value to do so. What sorts of programs would you institute? How would you spend the money? [Example of a zero-credit answer: give all the money to the ACLU or to the UN.]

I don't know. Give it to Bill Dembski? Did I get an A?

--------------The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

Answer the following questions [2 points each]:Define “viewpoint discrimination.”Restricting the expression of a particular view on a given subject when other views on the same subjectare allowed.

ahhh smell the pomo bill. it's all just viewpoints, right, bill?

Quote

How do “truthful traitors” differ from “loyal liars”?Truthful traitors tell their congregations outright that Christianity is bunk whereas loyal liars play alongwith the Christian sensibilities of their congregations but really are just as heretical as the truthfultraitors, believing likewise (without saying so outright) that Christianity is bunk.

wow. in the same frikking quiz as the first question. wow.

Quote

According to Greene, is it more effective to motivate people through reason or emotion? Is animmediate emotional appeal effective?Although Greene regards emotional appeals as far more effective than mere appeals to reason, he alsosuggests that people are naturally defensive, so that an overt emotional appeal may not succeed butinstead often requires a set-up.

hmmm, a set-up. like a good old home grown flash animation with fart sounds?

Quote

What does Robert Greene mean by a “perfect economy”?Greene here is talking about a very focused use of force that wastes no resources on one’s own end andcreates maximal damage on the enemy’s end by exploiting the enemy’s weaknesses.

PERFECT ECONOMY FAIL

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

You might say he is the Dick Cheney of Information Theory Christian Apologetics. Quite willing to send young people off to act as cannon fodder, but always managed to get a deferment when it was his turn.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

You might say he is the Dick Cheney of Information Theory Christian Apologetics. Quite willing to send young people off to act as cannon fodder, but always managed to get a deferment when it was his turn.

check out the napkin scribbling here and you might come up with another analogy

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

--------------I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moronAgain "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

TAKE-HOME FINAL EXAMPlease answer each of the following questions in 500 words or less. Answer every part of each question. Be concise. This exam is open-book, but you can only consult general reference books (e.g., the Bible), the five books read in class, and the notes you took in class. You may not cruise the Internet in search of answers or in any way seek the help of others. Your completed exam needs to be emailed to the grader, Jack Greenoe, by Thursday 12:00 noon. In turning this paper in you agree, on pain of divine judgment, that this is entirely your own work.

Answer the following questions [20 points each, no more than 500 words per question]:

1. Defend the Vincentian Canon to a 21st century skeptic of Christianity.

2. You just learned that your nephew or niece is going off to study theology at a liberal seminary. You suspect the place is teeming with “Homer Wilsons,” i.e., professors intent on eroding any real faith of the seminary students. Write a letter to your nephew or niece outlining the pitfalls that they are likely to face and how they should protect their faith from eroding.

3. According to Richard Dawkins, faith is believing in the absence of evident. By contrast, Nancy Pearcey argues that the attempt to remove Christian faith from the realm of knowledge and evidence has led to Christianity’s cultural captivity. Make the case that Christian faith is a matter not of subjective opinion but of objective knowledge.

4. No amputees are recorded as having been healed in the New Testament (i.e., no one with a missing limb is said to have grown back the limb in response to a prayer by Jesus or one of the Apostles). Indeed, throughout Church history it appears that no such miracle has occurred (if you know of a well-confirmed case, please cite it). Atheists therefore argue that if miracles really happened and gave evidence of God, God would have performed a healing like growing back the limb of an amputee. Do atheists have a point here? How do you maintain that miracles are real in the face of such criticism?

5. Philosopher and theologian Nancey Murphy, who is on the faculty of Fuller Theological Seminary, argues that humans do not have a soul, that soul is a Greek invention, and that the original Hebrew understanding of the human person was as a purely physical being. Thus, for her, our immortality consists not in having immortal souls but in the prospect of God resurrecting us to a new physical existence. Contra Murphy, argue that we do have a soul and that it is more than our physical bodies.

Good stuff. #s 1 & 2 - Reinforce the persecution complex, check. #3 - Faith is not about faith, but Truth!!1!, check. #4 - Anyone got a good way to answer those atheists on this? Bueller? #5 - Let's crack this one before the atheists get wind of it...

Not included is the extra credit question:

If you had $50 to spend on a book that could be mistaken for a text book; what topic would you be most interested in, and what title would most catch your eye? How much would you pay for that same book in paperback?

I went looking for Homer Wilson - I half expected him to be the prof in the Chick tracts. Maybe from here?

--------------Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

You might say he is the Dick Cheney of Information Theory Christian Apologetics. Quite willing to send young people off to act as cannon fodder, but always managed to get a deferment when it was his turn.

check out the napkin scribbling here and you might come up with another analogy

I like how, at page 5, Dembski juxtaposes "hyper-Darwinist atheists like Richard Dawkins," on the one hand, with "creationists/intelligent design proponents like me," on the other.

Letting your slip show a little there, Dr. Dr.?

--------------The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

2. You are an expert witness in the Dover case. You’ve been asked to summarize why you think intelligent design is a fully scientific theory. Do so here. Sketch out ID’s method of design detection and then show how it applies (or could apply) to biological systems. Further, indicate how ID is testable: what evidence would confirm ID and what evidence would disconfirm ID?

TELL ME WHAT I SHOULD HAVE DONE PLEASE

aaaaaaaaaand the real meat and taters of the ID 'movement'

Quote

4. You’ve been assigned to teach six Sunday school lessons on intelligent design over six consecutive Sundays. Each lesson is an hour and fifteen minutes. Outline how you would conduct these lessons. What would you have people read? In what order? What would you present? What would you want participants to take away at the end of the six weeks? 2

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

So at the beginning of every semester, these sites should register a sudden influx of never before seen names. I wonder if that is actually discernable. Enrollment might be too low to see it above the noise.